The main legal point established is that the prescribed period of limitation under Section 378(5) Cr.P.C. is a special law governing the appeal of private prosecutors, and the court does not have the power to condone the delay as stipulated under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

ORDER :

1. This Petition has been filed under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. for grant of Special Leave to Appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 05.12.2016 passed by the Special Judge (Electricity Act, 2003), District Janjgir-champa in Electricity Criminal Case No. 493/2015, whereby, the accused/Respondent has been acquitted of the charge under Section 135 (1)(a) of the Electricity Act, 2003 (for short ‘the Act of 2003’) for commission of theft of electricity.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 28.09.2015, when R.K. Acharya (CW-3), Executive Engineer, CSPDCL, Jangjir headed to village Nagpura with Assistant Lineman Ramji Pandit (CW-2) and Assistant Engineer Basant Som for inspection of electricity therein, they found that the accused/Respondent has committed theft of electricity by directly hooking the LT line in his agricultural premises. Hence, an inspection team has been constituted vide Ex.P-3 by R.K. Acharya (CW-3) and at the time of inspection of the said premises, his representative Fagu Singh Gond (not examined) was present and R.K. Acharya (CW-3) has given notice (Ex.P-7) for inspection and found that a 5 hp pump was used for directly hooking the LT line in an unauthorized and illegal manner for the agricultural purposes.

3. During investigation, panchnama (Ex.P-4) and the wire which has been used was seized (Ex.P-5) and spot map was also prepared (Ex.P-6). After receipt of such information at the Office, Assistant Engineer HS Shukla (CW-1) made an assessment (Ex.P-1) and in the calculations, as it was found that there is a loss of Rs.99.748/- therefore, temporary fine fixation order/bill (Ex.P-2) was passed in proforma-5. Nitesh Das Mahant (CW-4), Line Attendant has served the temporary fine/bill calculated by the Department (Ex.P-2) on the accused/Respondent and thereafter, HS Shukla, Assistant Engineer (CW-1), in the capacity of Nodal Officer, has filed a complaint under Section 135(1)(a) of the Act of 2003 before the Special Court. During trial, the accused/Respondent has abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried. The Complainant/Appellant-Department, in order to prove its case, has examined 4 witnesses and the accused/Respondent, in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he has been falsely implicated and has not adduced any defence evidence.

4. After evaluating the evidence, the trial Court has acquitted the accused/Respondent and recorded its findings that the Complainant/ Appellant-Department has failed to prove as to whether the place where inspection was carried out was within the possession of the accused/Respondent where, the Electricity pump was used unauthorizedly by directly hooking the LT line. Hence, this special leave to Appeal has been preferred.

5. The Complainant/Appellant has also filed an application i.e. IA No. 01/2017 for condonation of delay of 280 days in filing the Petition and assigned reasons that owing to administrative procedure, the said delay occurred and a prayer has been made that as there is a loss of Rs.99,748/- to the Public Exchequer, therefore, the Appellant may not be non-suited on the ground of delay and latches.

6. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard on the ground of limitation as also on merits.

7. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly admits that under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. a special procedure has been envisaged for grant of special leave to Appeal from the order of acquittal and the Complainant is required to present such Appeal to the High Court and further, a rider under Sub-Section (5) of Section 378 Cr.P.C. stipulates that no application under Sub-Section (4) for grant of special leave to Appeal from an order of acquittal shall be entertained by the High Court after expiration of 6 months, where the Complainant is a public servant and 60 days in every other case, computed from the date of that order of acquittal. He further fairly admits that this Petition has been filed beyond a period of 280 days but di